150
He's lying. Shocker.
I assume as much, but we already know that he's too stubborn to listen to anyone he doesn't hand-pick, and that he doesn't like being told what to do, so there's a chance that he'll just do whatever he wants in impulse for 4 years as president, and that P2025 limps along trying to convince Trump that they know best.
After 4 years of his supporters calling him the greatest president ever to set foot in the White House, I find it hard to believe he considers anyone more qualified than himself, given that he's a gigantic narcissist. I take P2025 as a serious threat given that there are billions of dollars backing it, but I also think their plan is ridiculous and impossible to actually execute without competence, and the guy they are relying on can't string together a complete sentence and is prone to random speeches about sharks.
ridiculous and abysmal
I wish them luck
Guy came this close to completing a single thought without weasel words
Those aren't even the weasel words.
Weasel words are 'Some of what they are doing is bad'.
'I support blah and blah within reasonable guidelines.'
'We must pursue blah blah to the greatest extent possible.'
This is just two-faced insane bullshit.
Doing a 180 about face in about a minute isn't weaseling, it isn't being less than totally clear, less than totally committed to a particular policy, unwilling to specifically define where you draw a line.
Its just fucking bold faced lying.
You're right, I misspoke. Weasel wording is how intelligent people lie.
Its no problem!
We are all constantly berated by so many forms of dishonesty that it can be easy to mix them up.
Another post i responded too a few days ago had a significant number of people explaining to them the difference between gaslighting and guilt tripping.
But yeah, weasel words are a way of intelligent people lying as you say.
It's basically the art of constructing some kind of way to wiggle out of some kind of position you held or thing you promised to do by being just vague or non commital, giving unspecified qualifiers, or using technical jargon or equivocating contextual word meanings such that you can technically not have lied or reversed course, in a possible future scenario.
Trump is just blatantly bullshitting.
Imagine if Trump had said:
Oh yeah, I don't support all of what Planned Parenthood does, some of it is ridiculous and abysmal, but hey they're good people and I hope they succeed.
Its contradictory, vague and just means nothing. Its like the paradox of meeting two people where one says 'B always lies' and the other says 'A is telling the truth.'
The only thing possible to discern is that neither A nor B are totally truthful, thus, extending the analogy, the seemingly contradictory statement is not trustworthy to actually mean anything.
The multiple parts of the stated information just make no sense when taken in totality.
If anyone said something like that online in a forum, it would pretty quickly be determined that they are either quite stupid, actually some kind of insane, or trolling/ragebaiting.
Same double talk as with not knowing what QAnon is and then using their stupid lingo, same double talk as Proud Boys stand back and stand by, same double talk as I'd release the Epstein Files but not as much, only somewhat, because some of it is lies.
Anyway, cheers to Greenland becoming the next US overseas territory, nuking a hurricane, removing the income tax and replacing it with a gigantic tariff, restarting nuclear testing and I guess pulling support from Ukraine, blowing up NATO, and everyone dying in the next pandemic.
Fucking clownworld we live in.
“They haven’t paid me enough to speak positively.”
"I disagree with that thing I don't know about."
"I wish them luck"
CNN is really biased
What app is that?
Goods Unite Us shows what contributions companies make in politics
Thanks for that!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The post comes days after the president of the Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts, drew widespread backlash from Democrats for saying in an interview that the country was “in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
Paul Dans, the head of Project 2025, was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management during the Trump administration, and the group’s roadmap for the next administration includes contributions from others who have worked for the former president, including his former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, former acting Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli and former deputy chief of staff Rick Dearborn.
Other high-profile organizations partnered with Project 2025 include the Center for Renewing America, run by Trump’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, who is viewed by many in Trump’s orbit as a likely contender for another Cabinet position in a second administration and is helping to lead the GOP platform committee ahead of the Republican National Convention later this month.
The Conservative Partnership Institute, run in part by Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former Sen. Jim Demint, and America Legal First, founded by his immigration adviser Stephen Miller, are also partners.
“Project 2025 is the extreme policy and personnel playbook for Trump’s second term that should scare the hell out of the American people,” Biden campaign spokesman Ammar Moussa said in a statement.
LaCivita doubled down further on Friday, tweeting: “Poke the Bear you are going to be bit” while sharing an article titled: “Trump torches Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025.”
The original article contains 1,052 words, the summary contains 272 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
150 points (93.6% liked)
politics
18129 readers
3684 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS